#but I might end up spreading misconceptions when I'm trying to be inclusive and i don't want to do that

[tangents-within-tangents]

Hey if you see my most recent reblog, I have already apologized. And explained my misunderstandings and miscommunications. I get that the things I was responding to probably came from my own misinterpretations of what your ask was talking about. My fucking bad.

I've learned, I've admitted wrong, I'm trying to implement those changes. Idk what else I can do. I regret this post and how it's affected people, but deleting it won't get rid of it, so what else can I do but apologize and try to do better?

Regardless, everything you are saying I'm arguing for is not what I was trying to say. Most of your questions I have already clarified multiple times in my other reblogs/replies and I'm tired of repeating myself.

aro and ace identities are about diff things. also, you could argue THOSE ones are "additional" to other identities like bi/homo/pan/etc. like whats your logic here?

Here's my logic: Say we have someone who thinks they are straight and labels themself as such. Overtime they realize they are actually bi. They change the label from 'heterosexual' to 'bisexual'. Later they discover they are ace, but not aro. They could then change the label to 'biromantic asexual' (even though when they identified as bisexual they didn't feel the need to say 'biromantic and bisexual' it was implied to mean both). If they then discover they are aplatonic they would label themselves as 'biromantic asexual aplatonic'. Right? If they discover they are also non-binary: 'biromanic asexual aplatonic non-binary'. That's what I meant by additional.

Clarifying distinctions between identities/umbrellas (where they are similar and helpfully grouped and where they are not) is not exclusive. That's why I used comparisons to other Lgbt+ stuff. Would you say that creating the term 'bisexual' or "trans" is exclusive and just gay people 'not wanting anything to do with that'? No. (Like I've seen a lot of people saying agender is Aspec and I think that's one we can agree is not actually included in that umbrella term. It's a gender identity and has nothing to do with lack of attractions, when would it ever be useful to talk about them together as one? But saying that it is not under that umbrella does not make it any less valid and important of a label/identity and doesn't mean it's not included under Lgbt+. And obviously doesn't mean that an agender person could never ALSO fall under that umbrella with a different aspect of their identity. And that person could totally talk about both at the same time, but they'd be talking about two distinct things)

your whole post here screams the same shit they say about aro and ace people. "yea thats valid but we don't really want it relating to us in any way. maybe if you don't feel welcomed gtfo" like?? THAT is your argument?

I get how it came off that way and I regret my wording, but no that is not my argument (the "if you don't feel welcome, sometimes it's not the right place' was bc I MISUNDERSTOOD and thought you meant that allosexual apls need to feel welcome in the ace community which is objective not true). I specifically said we need a term for the whole inclusive A-umbrella AND a term for just sexual and romantic orientations within that. If you don't think that second term is necessary, okay, but it really has been for me and many of us in that community for a long time (if you aren't convinced see my other reblogs or the one from @fiesty-spirit-bear for more about that connection. But you even connected them in your ask by saying "sexual/romantic relationships". By definition a non-platonic relationship, the opposite of a platonic relationship, is a sexual and/or romantic one. They are distinct relationships and therefore distinct aspects of one's life). Clarifying terms and how they are being used is not (automatically) exclusive (and the reason I said "I'm curious what other's think" is bc I know I'm not in charge and that I'm limited to my own perspectives).

Also, there's a difference between exclusion and just having one conversation at a time. Maybe it'll help to explain my experience with the word a bit? (I know this is all irrelevant to the topic of the og ask at this point but I've made a fuss so I just want to explain ig):

I made some posts for ace week this year and found that there were times where what I was talking about was just as applicable to aro issues as it was to ace issues, because amatonormativity often treats them as interchangeable (and bc SAM doesn't apply to everyone). If what I was writing was specific to just sex/sexual relationships, I would just use the word/tag "ace". If it was just romance/romantic relationships, I'd use "aro". But it wasn't, and it wasn't exclusive to just "aroace" either, it was "ace OR aro OR aroace" collectively, "aro and/or ace -spec". In my experience, the word "aspec" is used to refer to just that. But to be sure I was using it correctly I googled it first and read this whole wiki (the first result, which I linked above too) and decided yes, that is the correct definition of that term. It is just 'the aro and ace spectrums together' and therefore I can use it to mean that. (I also use it as an ambiguous term so that I don't have to refer to myself as "ace-spec and aro-spec" or divulge my specific microlabels (like I did above) every time I wanted to talk about something referring to both. If I was just ace, I could just say ace, but I'm not, nor am I aroace)

IF instead the results had been that "aspec" means 'the whole A umbrella', I would not have used it there. Bc in that case if I did use it to refer to only the aro and ace spectrums, that would actually be exclusive of all the other A's bc my post didn't mention related issues for all of them (and bc allosexual and/or alloromantic people can fall into those other A spectrums, so they obviously wouldn't find any relevance to a post only talking about aro/ace topics). But that is not the definition of "aspec" that is most common and widely accessible.

I'm not trying to redefine the communities, I'm trying to clarify solely the words we use to refer to them. Wanting a word for just the aro and ace spectrums is not wanting an exclusive word, just one that is more specific. I'm not saying that a word for the whole A-umbrella is not "too inclusive" it's just too broad for certain conversations. And having a distinct word for each in this way would actually help to avoid exclusion (and miscommunication since both definitions are currently in circulation (tho only on Tumblr tbh, I have not seen 'aspec' be used for 'the full A umbrella' anywhere else)).

Yes not all aro/ace's are alloplatonic, and therefore those communities need to be inclusive of aplatonic aro/aces (an idea I openly expressed multiple times and have taken to heart personally). But not all apls are aro/ace either, and aro/ace specific communities do not need to accommodate ALLO sexuals/romantics.

(Which is all (mostly) unrelated to the relationship hierarchy stuff you were talking anyway)

being apl in aspec communties sucks sm. everything is all about how important platonic relationships are and "dismantling relationship heirarchies", while just building new ones. it feels super unwelcoming.

like yea sure to YOU sexual/romantic relationships don't mean anything/are devalued/etc, but not to all of us!! some of us LIKE those things, and MORE than platonic relationships. its like we rnt even aspec at all 2 these people, like sorry some of us go against the grain of society while still having certain ""non queer"" parts to our identity. i feel like we are seen as not aspec/lgbt enough to participate in those communities. so much about the aspec communtity is about how untalked about we are and how we are never included or thought about in discussions, but aro and ace communtities do the same to us!!!

.